Lyda Ness-Garcia, an El Paso attorney, thanked city council members for their "courage" during public comment at Tuesday's city council meeting. She was referring to the aparent intent of some members of the council to preserve domestic partner benefits despite the will of the voters. People opposed to domestic partner benefits voiced their opinion verbally and with placards.

The City Council voted 4-3 not to introduce an ordinance that would preserve health benefits for unmarried partners of city employees. But the council continues to consider a ballot initiative that might require restoration of the benefit.

For now, it means that on Jan. 1, 19 gay and unmarried partners of city employees -- as well as 200 others -- will lose health benefits, said city Rep. Steve Ortega.

If the council had voted to preserve the benefit, it would have voided an ordinance approved this month by voters. The public --55 percent of the voters in the referendum -- struck down the council's domestic-partner policy.

The backlash city representatives would have faced was apparent Tuesday. Dozens who supported the citizen initiative attended the City Council meeting carrying signs saying, "Recall Petition Anyone?," "Respect our Vote," "Who Elected You?" and "Tyranny."

They oppose the partner benefits on moral grounds, and they were furious that the council might reverse the outcome of the Nov. 2 election.

"I think it's time for a tea party in El Paso," Gilbert Gallegos told the council.

But some turned out to tell the City Council it would be courageous to defy the voters.

"There was a time when interracial couples weren't allowed to marry," Lyda-Ness Garcia said. "When people were talking against interracial marriage, it was the same rhetoric we're using now."

But in the end, a majority of the council voted not to reverse results of the ballot initiative.

Advertisement

City Reps. Ann Morgan Lilly, Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega voted to vacate the ordinance that the public approved. Reps. Carl Robinson, Rachel Quintana, Eddie Holguin and Beto O'Rourke voted against rejecting the public referendum. Rep. Emma Acosta was absent.

After a motion to reconsider the matter, Lilly voted with the majority.

"I really question the values of the people who were behind this initiative," O'Rourke said. "But despite my personal objection to it, I will not vote to overturn the will of the voters of El Paso."

The Rev. Tom Brown helped organize the ballot initiative. He said he was pleased that council opted not to vacate it.

"It's good news for us and good news for the people," he said.

The City Council postponed for eight weeks a vote on whether to put an initiative on the May ballot asking voters to reconsider domestic partner benefit as part of a non-discrimination amendment to the city charter.

This month's ballot initiative said voters would be supporting "family values" by getting rid of the benefit. Ortega said he wants to give voters a chance to reconsider on the May ballot in language that is "neutral."

The city attorney's staff has identified about 200 people receiving city benefits -- members of the council, employees of the Public Service Board, retirees with access to benefits through another job and others -- who will lose benefits because of the language of the ballot initiative. It restricts health benefits to city employees, their legal spouses and their legal dependents.

The 200 identified so far are the primary beneficiaries of city health insurance -- not their dependents -- Ortega said.

"The (total) number could well be a lot higher," he said.

Organizers of the ballot initiative have said they only intended to end benefits for domestic partners of city employees.

But, O'Rourke said, he has gotten calls from constituents saying they voted for the initiative to end benefits to retirees. For that reason, he said, he did not want to enact only part of the ballot initiative.

Unions representing city workers had threatened to go court to keep members and retirees from losing benefits. But those threats may be losing steam.

Paul Thompson, a trustee for the union that represents El Paso firefighters, said the new ordinance will not have much impact on his union.

"I haven't spoken to one of our retirees yet who it's going to affect," Thompson said.

The union's attorneys will probably write to the state attorney general asking the office to review the city's interpretation of state law regarding retiree health benefits, he said.

Though the unions' passions might have cooled, passions were high in the council chambers.

Ignacio Padilla, a former city councilman, was escorted from the lectern after he accused some city officials of a conflict of interest because they received the domestic partners benefit and were fighting to keep it.

Lisa Turner, a supporter of the domestic partner benefit, was escorted away when she tried to speak a second time on the matter. Earlier, she cast the matter in constitutional terms, saying supporters of the ballot initiative were trying to force their religious beliefs on others.

"You're advancing religion," she told the city representatives who did not vote to overturn the ballot initiative.

Manny Hinojosa helped put the initiative on the ballot. He said he understood that supporters of domestic partner benefits think they are helping people.

"They come from a strictly humanitarian point of view," Hinojosa said. "But we're coming at it from a strict biblical point of view."

Marty Schladen may be reached at mschladen@elpasotimes.com; 546-6127.

ElsewhereSome members of the El Paso City Council want to overturn a voter-approved ban on medical insurance benefits for unmarried partners of city employees. Elected officials in other cities also have tried to void decisions that voters made. Here are three cases:

New York City

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his allies on the City Council in 2008 overturned a pair of voter referendums barring third terms for politicians. Voters struck back this month by approving a measure that limits politicians to two consecutive terms.

Detroit

Voters in 1992 approved a referendum prohibiting tax subsidies for construction of stadiums. The City Council repealed the ordinance in 1995, when the Detroit Tigers were pushing for a new ballpark. Then in a 1996 referendum voters reversed field, approving funding for new stadiums for the Tigers and the Detroit Lions.

Belfast, Maine

City Council members overturned guidelines for an 80-acre commercial district that voters established in 2001. Council members wanted a "big-box district" instead of the plan voters authorized. Some residents tried in 2008 to recall two council members, but voters retained them.

Sufjan Stevens, "Carrie & Lowell" (Asthmatic Kitty) Plucked strings and pulsing keyboards dominate the distinctive arrangements on Sufjan Stevens' latest album, and in the absence of a rhythm section, they serve to keep time. Full Story

ODESSA, Texas (AP) — A West Texas man has been charged with impersonating an officer by using sirens and flashing lights to skip to the head of the drive-thru line at a fast-food restaurant. Full Story